Official Report 696KB pdf
Legal Aid (Death or Serious Injury Incidents) (PE2168)
We go back to item 2, which is consideration of new petitions.
PE2168, which was lodged by Steven McInally, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to grant legal aid to all victims and their families when medical evidence confirms that a death or serious injury incident occurred during an interaction with Police Scotland personnel.
Mandatory fatal accident inquiries are held for all deaths that occur in legal custody, which includes police and prison custody. The Scottish Government’s response to the committee states that it is committed to introducing primary legislation that would provide for non-means-tested legal aid for families participating in FAIs on deaths in custody—including non-means-tested advice and assistance from day 1. That will be provided as part of a programme of wider reform in relation to legal aid in Scotland, which the Scottish Government intends to introduce through a bill in the next parliamentary session.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government intends to introduce a bill in the next parliamentary session to initiate a programme of legal aid reform. The committee could make only limited progress on the petition in the time remaining in this session.
I agree with Mr Russell. However, we should highlight to the petitioner that the Scottish Government intending to introduce a bill in the next Parliament should not be grounds for any solace. There are instances in which the Scottish Government has said that it would introduce a bill in the same session, while it is in government, and has not done so. A commitment for a future Government, when we do not know the make-up of it, should not be grounds for such consideration. Nevertheless, the wider issue of legal aid is incredibly challenging and it needs to be looked at by the next Scottish Government.
Are colleagues content with the proposal to close the petition on the basis that Mr Russell has suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
I briefly suspend the meeting.
10:27 Meeting suspended.Teaching Resources (Palestine and Israel) (PE2169)
Welcome back. The next petition is PE2169, on facilitating a review and upgrade of the teaching resource “Palestine and Israel, understanding the conflict”.
Before we proceed, I indicate that parliamentary rules are clear that, if the convener is present at a meeting, the convener must convene that meeting. I declare my interests: I am the convener of the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on building bridges with Israel and, in 2017, I undertook a visit to Israel that was funded by the Israeli embassy. I maintain regular contact with the Israeli embassy; indeed, we spoke earlier this week in relation to the release of a constituent who was part of a flotilla that got itself into some bother.
I also declare an interest: I am the deputy convener of the cross-party group on building bridges with Israel. Although I think that I am capable of coming to a balanced view on the very sensitive issues that are involved, I nonetheless decline to do so on this matter in case it is seen that I am partial and have an interest. That is perhaps the appropriate thing for me to do in this case.
10:30
I highlight to the committee and to anyone else who is watching that in my voluntary declaration of interests there is an entry that highlights a trip by Conservative Friends of Israel to Israel in 2016.
PE2169, which was lodged by Hugh Mitchell Humphries on behalf of Scottish Friends of Palestine, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to facilitate a review and upgrade of the teaching resource “Palestine and Israel, understanding the conflict” to assist understanding and debate in the security of classrooms.
The response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills states that the teaching resource is not a Scottish Government or Education Scotland resource. The submission states that it is owned by the EIS and is therefore a matter for the EIS to consider if, when and how it wishes to update the resource.
The petitioner states in his written submission:
“to use the issue of ownership of the resource as an excuse for rejecting the Petition is a red herring and untenable. When the Scottish Government gave the go-ahead for the formation of the original working group to produce a resource, in 2015, no contract of ownership was drawn up.”
The petitioner believes that with the current situation and political sensitivities around the topic of Israel-Palestine, local authorities and schools should be supported with a balanced resource.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Although it is a very emotive issue, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has been clear in its view that it is for the EIS to decide whether to update the teaching resource. Given the clear view that has been expressed by the Government, the committee is limited in the action that it can take on the petition, as the matter is more appropriately addressed at an operational level by the EIS.
I shall decline to take a view, but are those colleagues able to express a view content to support the proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
That means that the petition will be closed.
General Teaching Council for Scotland (Abolition) (PE2170)
PE2170, which was lodged by Paul Blaker on behalf of Accountability Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the General Teaching Council for Scotland and replace it with a Government agency. The petitioner believes that the General Teaching Council for Scotland is not supporting teachers’ professional development, nor helping children to experience improved quality learning and teaching.
The statutory functions of the GTCS are set out in a 2011 order, the purpose of which was to establish it as an independent self-regulating professional body for teachers working in Scotland. Some of its main functions are to keep a public register, set standards for the teaching profession, investigate individuals’ fitness to teach and provide advice to the Scottish Government.
The Scottish Government does not see the ask of the petition as practical or achievable, as it considers the GTCS to be effective in its statutory role. The Government states that it cannot intervene in processes or decisions made by fitness-to-teach panels, and that panel members are independent and not GTCS employees.
The GTCS commissioned the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care to undertake an independent review of its fitness-to-teach process. The PSA’s findings highlighted some improvements that could be made, such as reducing the time that the GTCS takes to resolve cases, supporting vulnerable participants, simplifying public-facing guidance and documentation, and enhancing case management. The GTCS has committed to presenting an action plan to its professional regulatory assurance committee in the light of those recommendations.
The petitioner’s additional submission brings forth further examples to illustrate his concerns that the GTCS is not meeting its core mission to uphold professional standards and protect pupils. It is a very determined representation, but the Government clearly takes an alternative view.
This petition is similar to one of the previous petitions, in that we have received a substantive supplementary written submission from the petitioner commenting on the Scottish Government’s response. In that submission, dated 5 September, which is fairly recent, the petitioner makes some fairly fundamental criticisms of the Scottish Government’s response. For example, the petitioner suggests that there is perhaps an inappropriate closeness between the Scottish Government and the GTCS, as evidenced by the fact that, within 24 hours of the petition’s publication, Scottish Government staff had emailed senior figures at the GTCS, which raises questions about the independence of the GTCS.
What is more significant is that the Scottish Government’s response referred to the PSA criticism, and the PSA has, as you said, convener, made a very detailed report. It added other criticisms, incidentally. For example, it said that the five-year rule is entirely arbitrary, which is absolutely correct. However, the Scottish Government did not actually mention the fact that the PSA report was fairly critical with regard to how these reports are normally shaped. In fact, it was very critical indeed. The Scottish Government also did not say that the equivalent of the GTCS in England was abolished in 2012—it just does not mention that at all. Therefore, plainly, that is something that could be done. I am not advocating for that—I am not taking a side on this—but, to give voice to the petitioner, we should go back to the Scottish Government to ask for a specific response on the points that the petitioner has made, and to ask what exactly is going to be done to address those criticisms, in the light of the fact that the report from the professional standards authority, which, as I understand it, is an independent body, was critical in numerous aspects.
It all looks to me as though there is potential substance to the petitioner’s claim that there is a very cosy relationship between all these bodies and that their leaders pass between them, so that the independence is theoretical, not real. I am not suggesting that we call on the minister to give evidence, because I am aware of the timetable pressure. I would have called for that had we been earlier in the parliamentary session. However, I think that we should make those requests of the Scottish Government for a specific response to the petitioner and to hear what it feels must be done in relation to pursuing the PSA recommendations, rather than it just drifting away and nothing happening, which is often the case.
Thank you. Mr Ewing recommends keeping the petition open and pursuing the points of interest with the Scottish Government. Are colleagues content to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
Prisons (PE2171)
That brings us to PE2171, lodged by Robert Macdonald, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the use of prisons for punishment and deterrence and use them only for public protection purposes, in order to reduce the pressure on the Scottish Prison Service and allow more focus on rehabilitation, thereby ensuring that those who pose the greatest risk are jailed, whilst allowing those who pose less of a risk to be given community orders, fines and potentially lifelong driving bans.
The SPICe briefing explains that prisons hold remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners. Remand prisoners are awaiting trial or sentencing following conviction, while those in the second category are serving a custodial sentence. A Scottish Government paper published earlier this year concludes that there is
“no single reason for the increase in the prison population, and therefore no simple solution to manage and tackle the issue”.
The Scottish Government’s view on the ask of the petition is that, due to the complexity of the matter, it is not practical or achievable in the short term. However, the Government reiterates its long-term ambition to use prisons only for those who pose a risk of serious harm.
The response also pointed to various pieces of work that are aimed at shifting the balance between the use of custody and justice in the community. Most significantly, the sentencing and penal policy commission was established this year to establish the use and effectiveness of custodial sentences and community interventions. The commission is expected to make recommendations for dealing with offending behaviours in a way that is effective and proportionate, with the ultimate aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s prison population.
Finally, the Government reiterated that courts continue to have discretion in determining the appropriate sentence for any given case, which may include a custodial sentence if that is deemed necessary.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I recommend that the committee closes the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, although the Scottish Government supports the broad aims of the petition, it considers that they can be achieved only in the long term. Furthermore, sentencing is a matter for the courts. Finally, the sentencing and penal policy commission is currently examining the effectiveness of sentencing and community interventions.
I agree with those comments, but I also reflect on the fact that imprisonment serves various necessary purposes. Those include incapacitation to protect the public, deterrence against future crime, rehabilitation—which is important and challenging—and punishment. Punishment is the price that people pay in losing their liberty for committing a very serious crime. It cannot be morally justifiable to somehow elide punishment as a justification for imprisonment. The public would find it difficult to agree that punishment is not appropriate where someone commits a rape or a murder. Punishment is a necessary—though not the sole—function of imprisonment, and, in my humble opinion, it must always be so.
So, you support Mr Golden’s recommendations, Mr Ewing.
Yes, I do.
Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for raising the issue and note that the Scottish Government supports the broad aims of the petition, and we also note the comments of colleagues. However, at this point, there is not anything that the petitions committee would be able to do to further advance the aims of the petition in the light of the submissions that we have received.
School Meals (Ultra-processed Food Ban) (PE2173)
Our final new petition for consideration today is PE2173, which was lodged by Lauren Houstoun. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the use of ultra-processed food in school meals across Scotland in order to give our children healthier options.
The SPICe briefing explains that there is no single, universally agreed definition for “ultra-processed food”. Examples of ultra-processed foods might include sweetened breakfast cereals, carbonated soft drinks or confectionery. They might also include low-fat spreads or some flavoured yogurts.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that all food and drink that is served in education authority and grant-aided schools in Scotland are under a statutory duty to comply with the Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2020. Compliance with the regulations is monitored by Education Scotland’s health and nutrition inspectors as part of the school inspection programme.
The Scottish Government’s response also states that current scientific evidence does not support a change to dietary advice in relation to the consumption of ultra-processed foods and notes that the evidence base remains of insufficient quality to propose changes at this time. The submission highlights that not all ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, with many playing an important part in ensuring food safety and standards. The issue of processed and ultra-processed foods is kept under review by the scientific advisory committee on nutrition.
The Government’s submission notes that an outright ban of ultra-processed products would mean that products such as bread, yoghurts and breakfast cereals would no longer be provided in schools. That could have a significant impact on the nutritional content of school meals, including fibre, calcium and vitamins, some of which would be difficult to get in sufficient quantities from other food sources that are available. As such, the Scottish Government does not currently consider that a ban on ultra-processed products in schools would be in the best interests of child nutrition in the light of current scientific evidence and dietary advice.
10:45
The aim of the petition, which is to ban ultra-processed food in school meals, is quite a big ask. Nonetheless, the response from the Scottish Government is extremely disappointing. As you have highlighted, convener, the Scottish Government says that an outright ban on ultra-processed food would mean that products such as bread, yoghurts and breakfast cereals would no longer be provided in schools. I cannot fathom how that would be the case, and I am happy to provide the Scottish Government with examples of bread, yoghurts and breakfast cereals that are not ultra-processed and that can be provided.
It would be helpful for the committee to write to the Scottish Government to ask for a percentage of school meals to be provided that are fresh, which is one of the Scottish Government’s priorities. I know what I would consider to be sustainable, but it would be useful for the Scottish Government to define “sustainable produce”. We should, as I have highlighted, ask the Scottish Government whether it believes that there are no alternatives to bread, yoghurt and breakfast cereals that are not ultra-processed. Finally, if the Scottish Government could highlight and put in the public domain the data on how it monitors the local authority provision of school menus, that would at least help to inform consideration of the petition.
In addition, we might want to consider writing to the providers of school meals, given the position that we are in and our need to progress quickly. For example, in my region, Tayside Contracts would be one such provider that we could ask for similar information. It is important that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have an overview of school meal provision across Scotland.
That is a comprehensive set of suggestions, Mr Golden. As no other colleagues have any thoughts on the matter, do we agree to those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and seek information from the Scottish Government, as expressed by Mr Golden.
That brings us to the end of our consideration of new petitions today and to the end today’s proceedings. We will meet again on Wednesday 29 October.
Meeting closed at 10:47.Previous
Continued Petitions